Weirdest reason for a mistrial i've heard in a long time...

[Fairportfan]

Man's prosthetic eye falls out during trial, judge declares mistrial

During an assault trial in Philadelphia, a man's prosthetic eye fell from its socket, resulting in gasps from the jury, and a mistrial.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that John Huttick was on the witness stand, testifying about losing his left eye in a brutal fight in 2011. He began to cry, and the force of the tears reportedly caused the prosthetic, also known as a glass eye, to fall out. (Huttick, luckily, caught the eye.) Several jury members rose as if they needed to leave. A short time later, the judge declared a mistrial.

CNN reports that Philadelphia Assistant District Attorney Mark Gilson said, "I've been a prosecutor for 26 years and I've never seen anything like that happen. It was unusual; it was shocking."

Defense attorney Eileen J. Hurley said, "He was crying, and when it came out, he caught [it] in his hand and just held it there. It was a shocking event to witness."

Judge Robert P. Coleman felt the incident would have likely created additional sympathy for Huttick among the jury members.

As for the reason for the trial, Huttick was working as a bar bouncer in 2011 when he was told about a fight in a nearby parking lot. He went to intervene but was allegedly struck by a man named Matthew Brunelli. Brunelli has claimed self-defense and said he only used his fist against the much larger Huttick. Gilson claims Brunelli stabbed his client with a key, which resulted in the lost eye.

"The issue is settled; he admitted he punched the victim and caused the injuries, but claims there was no weapon," said Gilson. "That's just unbelievable. The man's eye had a puncture wound. That's not a punch."

The case is scheduled to be retried next month, according to CNN.

[DinkyInky]

Jurists are required to be objective, and if they cannot be, they should not be allowed to continue. That said, the eyeball stunt just...yeah, I don't buy it.

[Mark N]

I saw this earlier and thought, if the M.E. finds that there was a weapon used on the eyeball then it should be an open shut case since the aggressor admitted hitting him in the eye. The only question is if he is telling the truth then someone else used a weapon on the victim, say a self inflicted injury (since I have no info on the case I will not go any farther with this thought).
But as to the strangeness of the case most judicial systems have to allow checks and balances so a jury is needed and as Dinky Inky pointed out they must be objective so the judge had no real choice here. As for the eye falling out, I have never heard of that happening with an American eye job before. To be loose the muscles in the eyelids would have to be loose since the eye is measured for the size of the orifice it will be placed in.

[Fairportfan]

I didn't mean that declaring the mistrial was weird - i would expect it.

It was the reason for the mistrial that i found wonderful.

[Atomic]

And if he had said, "Here is what he cost me!" and pulled out the glass eye -- would that be cause? Or had held up a hand missing a finger from a knife fight instead? Or opened his shirt to show the jagged scar, etc?

Trials include drama as well as the presentation of evidence. Yes, the judge has to draw a line, but this event plus the ME's report of the punctured eye is icing on the cake.

I once was on a jury where the defendant's family members traded insults with the witness. Not pretty, or the least helpful to the defendant. One (in a series) of Contempt of Court ruling later...

Ick.

[Fairportfan]

And if he had said, "Here is what he cost me!" and pulled out the glass eye -- would that be cause? Or had held up a hand missing a finger from a knife fight instead? Or opened his shirt to show the jagged scar, etc?

If an attorney asked what damages he had sustained - and the judge okayed it - no, it wouldn't be cause.

If he did it spontaneously, not only would it be cause, but probably a contempt citation as well.